Keith Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (1) There are some set of problems that users have or
> > believe they have.
> >
> > (2) NAT solves at least some of those problems, at some
> > cost (say Cn), both financial and operational and
> > that solution has benefit Bn.
> >
> > (3) The fact that a large number of people have chosen
> > to use NAT is a strong argument that B>C. (Here's
> > where the invocation of revealed preference comes in).
>
> There's ample evidence that many users aren't aware of the costs of
> using NAT, or especially, weren't aware of those costs before they
> started using NAT - so their choices were poorly informed. So no, it's
> not reasonable to conclude that decisions to use NATs are justified by
> realistic cost-benefit estimations of doing so.
NATs have been around for quite a while. This might have been
a convincing argument 5 years ago, but I don't find it very
convincing now, particularly in view of the fact that some
people who clearly understand the cost/benefits choose to use them.
> Note also that cost optimization by individual users (even if
> well-informed) does not necessarily produce a cost-optimized result for
> the overall community.
Of course. But then you have to describe the negative externality.
See my response to Melinda for more on this.
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rtfm.com/
